DOI: 10.25136/2409-7136.2017.10.23817

Abstract: The article studies the peculiarities of review of judicial decisions according to the 1923 Criminal Procedure Code of the RSFSR. The author studies the established forms of review of judicial decisions in their interconnection with the peculiarities of organization of the judiciary responsible for effective monitoring of judicial acts. The author notes the similarities and differences between the Soviet cassation, proceedings in the order of supervision and reopening cases in view of newly discovered facts. The author considers the topical questions of review of facts of a criminal case in court of review in the context of direct prohibition against reviewing the essence of a judicial decision. The author notes limited cognitive abilities of a cassation court and the related problems of proving in reviewing judicial decisions, which haven’t yet become effective in law. The article analyzes general reasons for reviewing judicial decisions in the order of cassation or supervision, which allow for repeated review of the facts. The author defines the peculiarities of review of judicial decisions, which have become effective in law, determined by the initiation of such a review and a special position of a prosecutor in reopening cases in view of newly discovered facts. The research subject of the article determines the use of a set of general scientific (system analysis, empirical material description, comparison and generalization) and specific (historical-legal, law enforcement practice generalization and technical-legal) methods. The author concludes about the range of significant institutional contradictions between legislative regulation of the system of review of judicial decisions according to the 1923 Criminal Procedure Code of the RSFSR and law-enforcement practice. The revealed contradictions made the legislator look for their settlement, and criminal procedural law scholars – substantiate the Soviet doctrine of review if judicial decisions. 

DOI: 10.7256/2454-0706.2017.9.23818

Abstract: This article analyses the peculiarities of court ruling revision during the period of validity of the 1960 Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR. The work elucidates that the further development of the socialistic model of court ruling revision was related to the legal recognition and the scientific justification of the admissibility of revision of case facts in a supreme court in the absence of a procedure for the review of direct evidence. The grounds for revision in a cassational and the supervision procedures are identical, which proves that the entering of a ruling into force was of no consequence for the revision system. The modernization of the entire existing legal system, while preserving Soviet and restoring pre-revolutionary agencies for court ruling revision, carried out in the period between the judicial reform of the 1990’s, and the adoption of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation in 2001, is under consideration. The article pays special attention to the attempt to separate the appeal proceeding from current cassational revision procedure by law. The subject of the article required the application of a number of general scientific methods (systemic analysis, description of empiric material, comparison and generalization), as well as field-specific methods (historic and legal analysis, generalization of the law enforcement practice and technical and legal analysis). The author concludes that the existing institutional contradictions of the revision system, established by the 1960 Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR, made it unstable and short-lived. The stated contradictions brought about the need for the court reforms of 1990–2000, which concerned court ruling revision as well. The main result of such reforms was the restoration of appeal proceedings; otherwise, the changes in the revision system were not fundamental.

DOI: 10.7256/2454-0706.2017.9.43093

Abstract: This article analyses the peculiarities of court ruling revision during the period of validity of the 1960 Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR. The work elucidates that the further development of the socialistic model of court ruling revision was related to the legal recognition and the scientific justification of the admissibility of revision of case facts in a supreme court in the absence of a procedure for the review of direct evidence. The grounds for revision in a cassational and the supervision procedures are identical, which proves that the entering of a ruling into force was of no consequence for the revision system. The modernization of the entire existing legal system, while preserving Soviet and restoring pre-revolutionary agencies for court ruling revision, carried out in the period between the judicial reform of the 1990’s, and the adoption of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation in 2001, is under consideration. The article pays special attention to the attempt to separate the appeal proceeding from current cassational revision procedure by law. The subject of the article required the application of a number of general scientific methods (systemic analysis, description of empiric material, comparison and generalization), as well as field-specific methods (historic and legal analysis, generalization of the law enforcement practice and technical and legal analysis). The author concludes that the existing institutional contradictions of the revision system, established by the 1960 Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR, made it unstable and short-lived. The stated contradictions brought about the need for the court reforms of 1990–2000, which concerned court ruling revision as well. The main result of such reforms was the restoration of appeal proceedings; otherwise, the changes in the revision system were not fundamental.

DOI: 10.7256/2454-0706.2016.7.13290

Abstract: This work studies the issues of proof in the court of appeals, namely the questions of examination of new evidence, which received the assessment of the court of first instance, examinations on file that were not examined by the court of first instance, as well as examinations by the same rules of new evidence presented by the parties. An important place belongs to the analysis of the normative legal regulations and legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, and courts of appeal of a number of the constituents of the Russian Federation on the issue of examination of new evidence in the courts of appeal. The author makes a conclusion on the need to overcome the current practice of hearing of a case in a court of appeals without examination of evidence, which does not allow to increase the level of legal protection of rights, freedoms, and legal interests of citizens and organizations involved in the sphere of criminal procedure that are guaranteed by the Constitution of the Russian Federation and federal laws.

DOI: 10.7256/2454-0706.2016.7.42661

Abstract: This work studies the issues of proof in the court of appeals, namely the questions of examination of new evidence, which received the assessment of the court of first instance, examinations on file that were not examined by the court of first instance, as well as examinations by the same rules of new evidence presented by the parties. An important place belongs to the analysis of the normative legal regulations and legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, and courts of appeal of a number of the constituents of the Russian Federation on the issue of examination of new evidence in the courts of appeal. The author makes a conclusion on the need to overcome the current practice of hearing of a case in a court of appeals without examination of evidence, which does not allow to increase the level of legal protection of rights, freedoms, and legal interests of citizens and organizations involved in the sphere of criminal procedure that are guaranteed by the Constitution of the Russian Federation and federal laws.

DOI: 10.7256/1994-1471.2014.5.10979

Abstract:

DOI: 10.7256/1994-1471.2014.4.10411

Abstract:

DOI: 10.7256/1994-1471.2013.11.9574

Abstract:

DOI: 10.7256/1994-1471.2013.4.7095

Abstract: